the site works fine for me.
The problem I encounter is, that loading the subscriptions from youtube triggered a crawler detection on youtubes side, and I currently can’t load anything that is by YT. Bit annoying
Comment on Grayjay: A new app that merges different video platforms into one
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
I watched that earlier. Seems promising. I like that it’s open source but restricted enough that they can (at least try to) shut down anyone who forks it specifically to add ads or trackers. And it must be getting some interest because I haven’t been able to get the site to load yet.
SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
the site works fine for me
Interesting. Must be my internet as I’ve tried on multiple machines and I get a timeout.
sir_reginald@lemmy.world 1 year ago
you like them removing your freedom?
Bishma@discuss.tchncs.de 1 year ago
In this case, very much so. Freedom to distribute other people’s software after surreptitiously adding trackers is freedom to do harm. In much the same way as I like people not having the freedom to come smash my windows and then try to cut me with the glass.
sir_reginald@lemmy.world 1 year ago
look, I understand you’re all followers this “influencer” or whatever. But this is not a novelty feature. Newpipe has been allowing access to YouTube videos in a similar matter for a long, long time. And their app is truly free software, anyone’s able to view, edit and distribute the code.
So if this dev is artificially telling everyone that the reason for them using a not open/libre license is to impede people putting trackers on top, that’s absurd.
Specially taking into account that real a malicious actor won’t give a fuck about the license, take the code and put ads or whatever anyway.
This license is only effectively restricting community forks
Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 1 year ago
Specially taking into account that real a malicious actor won’t give a fuck about the license, take the code and put ads or whatever anyway.
They can sue his ass. New Pipe cant
MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
this is the dumbest fucking analogy I’ve ever heard. yes, Linux is the equivalent of letting people break your windows and stab you with the broken glass. A tier brain rot take
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
Didn’t watch the video?
Individuals are free to do whatever, but you’re not allowed to redistribute with a bunch of shit tacked on.
sir_reginald@lemmy.world 1 year ago
that’s effectively taking away your freedoms. If there can’t exist community forks that can maintain the app if the original dev crease development or decide to add anti features, then you’re being restricted.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
If you’re free to upload work you didn’t do, with malicious changes meant to make money, that you can promote above the original, you’re freedoms should be smacked.
RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 year ago
It isn’t open source, the licence violates point six of the open source definition
jet@hackertalks.com 1 year ago
And violates point 1 The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. … commercial distribution is forbidden in the license.
And violates point 3 The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
and violates point 4 Integrity of The Author’s Source Code no patch files are explicitly allowed_
and point 6 - you already covered
ayaya@lemdro.id 1 year ago
This would definitely fall under the “source-available” category.
MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
It’s definitely FOSS. (Fake Open Source Software)
vector_zero@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The source is available on their gitlab instance, so whether it not it conforms to some specific definition of open source, the source code is readily available for anyone to view and modify.
twotone@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nope, the license forbids that.
This is source available
vector_zero@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Do you have a quote from the license to prove that? Louis Rossman himself said we’re free to grab the code and edit it.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
That is one definition of open source
I agree that it is great to meet all these criteria, but especially restricting commercial use is a pretty reasonable thing to do
twotone@lemmy.world 1 year ago
OSI’s definition is the oldest and original definition. It’s decades old at this point.
0xD@infosec.pub 1 year ago
Yeah, and shit changes.
JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
I would say that Open Source, by any definition of the word, does have the assumption that you are allowed to modify and publish what you create at least in some form or another, even if it would be under a non-commercial clause or a license with other requirements.
When the licence explicitly says all you are allowed to do is access the code “solely for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution”, that’s not open source.
thisfro@slrpnk.net 1 year ago
I’d say that is open source. But not free and open source